From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] switchdev: push bridge attributes down Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:05:25 -0700 Message-ID: <20150924140525.514eac85@urahara> References: <1443128370-27353-1-git-send-email-sfeldma@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, jiri@resnulli.us, siva.mannem.lnx@gmail.com, pjonnala@broadcom.com, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, andrew@lunn.ch, f.fainelli@gmail.com, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com To: sfeldma@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.220.51]:35831 "EHLO mail-pa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753958AbbIXVFQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:05:16 -0400 Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so84648093pac.2 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:05:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1443128370-27353-1-git-send-email-sfeldma@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:59:26 -0700 sfeldma@gmail.com wrote: > From: Scott Feldman > > Push bridge-level attributes down to switchdev drivers. This patchset > adds the infrastructure and then pushes, as an example, ageing_time attribute > down from bridge to switchdev (rocker) driver. Add some range-checking > for ageing_time. > > # ip link set dev br0 type bridge ageing_time 1000 > > # ip link set dev br0 type bridge ageing_time 999 > RTNETLINK answers: Numerical result out of range > > Up until now, switchdev attrs where port-level attrs, so the netdev used in > switchdev_attr_set() would be a switch port or bond of switch ports. With > bridge-level attrs, the netdev passed to switchdev_attr_set() is the bridge > netdev. The same recusive algo is used to visit the leaves of the stacked > drivers to set the attr, it's just in this case we start one layer higher in > the stack. One note is not all ports in the bridge may support setting a > bridge-level attribute, so rather than failing the entire set, we'll skip over > those ports returning -EOPNOTSUPP. Rather than having more in bridge, shouldn't this just be a netlink event?